The document discusses the Christian concept of the Trinity. Early Christian intellectuals tried to understand the relationship between God and Jesus philosophically. They proposed that Jesus is one "persona" or aspect of God, along with the Father and Holy Spirit. The church fathers agreed these persons are uncreated and coeternal. After conflicts, the church determined they are "homoousios" or of the same essence. The document then provides two approaches to understanding the Trinity: (1) it reveals God's word, and (2) God is both immanent in the world through the Holy Spirit and transcendent over it through Jesus, sent by God, to change the world with love, provide orientation, and liberate humanity.

1. Trinity, huh?
A try to understand something
that's beyond reason (per definition).

2. Jesus: One person of Trinity
Jesus
Christus
Son of God
Savior
The old christian confession
ICHTHYS
In the 3rd century some
intellectual christians tried
to fathom the relation
between Jesus and God –
philosophically!

3. The „personas“ of the Trinity
They stated that
Jesus is one
„persona“ (=mask of
an actor in a theater)
of the three personas
of God:
Father,
Son,
Holy Spirit

4. But which relation do
they have?
The church fathers
agreed: They all are
„uncreated“, older that
the world... and hence
beyond human
reason.
Do they have a boss?
Are they equal? Is
one the function of
another one?

5. After many conflicts the
church determined a
dogma:
The persons of the trinity
are „homoousios“,
coessential.

6. The relationship
between the Father
and the Son was
determined as
„undiffused and
unseperated“

7. Jesus: One person of Trinity
This kind of terminology
somehow reminds me on
mixed drinks...
Did the church fathers visit
cocktail bars during their
council recesses?

8. Jesus: One person of Trinity
Aside from these speculative distinctions
I try to add two approaches of
understanding trinity (at least
parable-like)
At least, every kind of knowledge
should have some
●
plausibility
●
inner logic
●
benefit
●
compatiblity with other sources
of knowledge

9. Someone told me that trinity is easy to understand if you consider what it
does:
Reveal the word of God
#1

10. God
world
Relationship
between God
and the world
(3 variants)
The next one isn't that
easy.
It tries to reflect the
relationship between
God and the world.
#2
??

11. world
God is
„immanent“:
God
If God is immanent, i.e. equals the
world (or the matter, or the
evolution?), then: How is that the
world exists?
This makes no sense, and the
biblical statement is quite clear: God
is the creator of the world.
Hence: This model can be dropped.

12. God
world
God is
transcendent:
If God is transcendent, i.e.
completely outside of the
world, the creation of the world
is no problem.
However, nothing of God is
inside the world then.
God is useless and irrelevant
to us. Prayers will not be
granted.
There is no base for any kind
of revelation, too.

13. world
God is
immanent and
transcendent:
God
Christianity bases on
revelation.
So, whatever others may think:
We believe that God is outside
the world and inside as well.
But how can we conceive this
double presence?
(we'll see that it results in a triple
presence)

14. world
Holy
Spirit
God is
immanent and
transcendent:
God
The Holy Spirit is the „persona“
of god that blows through the
whole creation, animating,
vivifying, enchanting
everything.
It is the breath of God. Without
it, we would die instantly.

15. world
Holy
Spirit
God is
immanent and
transcendent:
God
However, the spirit needs a
direction, as the world needs a
destination, and the thinking
beings need comfort and
enlightenment in the face of
the misery of their unlasting
existence.
In love God sends out his
word, and for us humans his
word became flesh in the
person of Jesus.

16. world
Holy
Spirit
God is
immanent and
transcendent:
God
So, the word,
spoken by the
father
acts through the
spirit.
changes the
world with
love
changes the
world with
love
provides
orientation
provides
orientation
liberates and
redeems
liberates and
redeems
K
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
h
e
t
P
r
i
e
s
t

17. That's it!
Let us check if the approach
#2 is a valuable one:
Plausible:
Logical:
Beneficial:
Compatible with other
sources of knowledge:
I think it is. But everone has to decide that on his own
behalf.
At least, every kind of
knowledge should have some
●
plausibility
●
inner logic
●
benefit
●
compatiblity with other
sources of knowledge
At least, every kind of
knowledge should have some
●
plausibility
●
inner logic
●
benefit
●
compatiblity with other
sources of knowledge
I see no contradictions.
Tell me if you find some.
I think the benefit is that I get a pattern how God
communicates and gives me comfort.
The decisive point: Is it compatible
with the Bible's statements? - I think
so.